Texas Woman Arrested for Facebook Post About Town Water Quality

Jennifer Combs had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. On May 8, police in Trinidad, Texas, arrested her on a state jail felony charge for writing a Facebook post about the town’s water supply.

The post said residents had been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. The city says that claim was false. So they sent cops to her door.

The charge is felony false alarm or report under Texas Penal Code § 42.06, a statute designed for people who call in fake bomb threats or fabricate emergencies. Trinidad’s police chief and local officials decided it also applies to a woman who ran a community Facebook page and relayed what neighbors told her about getting sick.

Combs’ post, published on her “Southern Belle Watch” account, read in part: “We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”

That post got her a night in the Navarro County Justice Center. She has since filed a federal lawsuit alleging the arrest was “an act of deliberate political retaliation.”

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The water is brown. The city admits it.

Trinidad, a small city in Henderson County about an hour southeast of Dallas, has a water problem that nobody disputes.

Keep reading

Merkel Urges EU to Keep Regulating Social Media Speech

Angela Merkel used her first major European platform since leaving office to tell the EU exactly what it wanted to hear: keep regulating speech online, and don’t worry too much about getting it wrong.

The former German chancellor, speaking Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, urged the bloc to “continue regulating the social media” and artificial intelligence. “To believe that responsibility for spreading information is no longer necessary, that accountability – there should be no accountability for lies, then that would undermine democracy,” she told the chamber.

Lies. Who decides what counts as a lie? In the EU’s model, that question gets answered by the European Commission, by government-appointed regulators, by “trusted flaggers” that platforms are legally required to obey. Not by courts. Not through anything resembling due process.

Merkel knows this system well. Her government built the prototype. Germany’s NetzDG law, passed under her chancellorship in 2017, required platforms to delete “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours or face fines up to €50 million.

The people whose speech got censored under it included a satirical magazine, a political street artist, and an opposition party leader. NetzDG became an export product, copied by governments in Russia, Turkey, and across Southeast Asia, each adapting it to their own definition of “illegal.”

The EU took the concept continent-wide with the Digital Services Act, which requires major platforms to assess and reduce “systemic risks,” a category broad enough to cover “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “public security.”

The Commission writes the rules, decides whether platforms comply, and levies fines of up to 6% of global revenue when they don’t. No independent prosecutor. X is currently challenging the first DSA fine ever imposed, a €120 million penalty from December 2025, arguing the process involved “grave procedural errors” and “systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process.”

More than 50 European NGOs have warned that the DSA’s vague terms could violate the EU Charter’s own free expression protections. The Commission’s response was to declare the law “content-agnostic” and move on.

Merkel acknowledged none of this. She told parliamentarians that “perhaps mistakes will be made, but we learn through mistakes.” That’s cold comfort when the mistakes involve censoring legal speech and silencing political opposition through systems with no judicial oversight and no meaningful appeal.

Her remarks came at the inaugural ceremony for the European Order of Merit, where she was honored alongside 19 other laureates, including Lech Wałęsa, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She framed regulation as essential to democracy. “We’ve had 75 years of European thought,” she said. “Peace, prosperity, and democracy.”

Keep reading

South Carolina’s New Social Media Law Puts Every User Under Age Surveillance

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed H.B. 4591 on May 19, turning the Stop Harm from Addictive Social Media Act into a law that will reshape how every resident of the state uses major social media platforms.

The bill passed with almost no opposition, clearing the House 115-0 and the Senate 42-1. It takes effect January 1, 2027, and it brings with it a surveillance apparatus aimed at all users.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The law, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Guffey (R-York), requires covered platforms to repeatedly estimate and verify the age of every South Carolina account holder.

The stated goal is child protection. The way it claims to do that is continuous behavioral analysis of anyone who spends enough time on a platform, combined with escalating confidence thresholds and penalties of ten thousand dollars per violation if platforms get it wrong.

Here’s how the age estimation system works. Once an account holder hits 25 cumulative hours on a platform within six months (the “first trigger date”), the platform has 14 days to estimate whether that person is over 15, with 80% confidence.

At 50 hours (the “second trigger date”), the confidence requirement jumps to 90%. After that, the platform must update its estimate every 100 hours of use, or whenever it runs data analytics on the user for any other reason, whichever comes sooner.

That last clause is easy to miss and it means any time a platform runs its profiling algorithms on you for ad targeting, content recommendations, or anything else, it also has to re-evaluate your estimated age. The law essentially piggybacks mandatory age surveillance onto whatever commercial surveillance platforms already conduct, expanding the scope of both.

Because platforms face significant liability if they can’t meet these confidence thresholds, the law creates powerful incentives to harvest far more sensitive data about users than they do today, including about minors.

A platform that guesses wrong faces $10,000 per violation. A platform that overinvests in behavioral profiling to avoid those fines faces no penalty at all. The incentive structure points in one direction.

The bill claims it “does not create any duty on the part of a covered social media platform to request, collect, or retain any information from or about any account holder” and that age estimates must be “derived based on information collected and retained by the covered social media platform in the ordinary course of operation.”

This is the bill’s central fiction. Platforms that can’t achieve 80% or 90% confidence from existing data will need to collect more data, or face financial ruin from accumulated violations. The law doesn’t mandate new data collection in the same way that holding a knife to your wallet doesn’t mandate you hand over cash.

For users classified as children (under 16), the restrictions are extensive. Accounts require verifiable parental consent, with privacy settings locked to the most restrictive levels by default.

Platforms cannot show children profile-based feeds, profile-based advertising, or any “addictive interface features,” a category that includes infinite scrolling, auto-play video, push notifications, and display of personal metrics like reaction counts.

Keep reading

You can now legally request revenge and deepfake porn to be taken down. Here’s how

Online platforms are now required by law to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of reporting, as a federal law criminalizing the sharing of such content goes into full effect Tuesday.

President Donald Trump signed the Take It Down Act into law last year, which makes it illegal to publish online nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, real or artificially generated. But the act gave online platforms one year to create a process for removing such imagery within 48 hours of notification from users. If online platforms fail to do so, they could face civil penalties of $53,088 per violation. That one year deadline expired on Tuesday.

The provisions now going into effect ensure that tech companies “can no longer turn a blind eye to these horrifying abuses on social media,” Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who co-wrote the bill with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, said in a statement.

The Federal Trade Commission, which will enforce the law, sent letters to major online platforms last week warning them about compliance. That includes popular social platforms such as Meta, Snapchat, TikTok and X, along with gaming platforms and dating apps Bumble and Match Group, Reddit, Discord, Pinterest and tech giants Amazon, Alphabet and Microsoft.

Any business that “primarily provides a forum for user-generated content or regularly publishes, curates, hosts, or furnishes intimate content shared without consent,” is subject to the law, according to the FTC.

The other provision of the law applying to individuals who post non-consensual intimate imagery is already in effect. Violators can face fines and up to two years in prison.

Keep reading

TikTok Removes Reform UK Campaign Video Using Online Safety Act “Hate” Censorship Rules

The UK’s Online Safety Act has been in force for less than a year and it is again being used to censor political speech during an election.

TikTok blocked and then deleted a campaign video by Reform UK’s Spokesperson for Home Affairs, Zia Yusuf, after someone reported it under the OSA’s content reporting mechanism.

The video was about immigration policy and takes place during a period of campaigning for a by-election.

TikTok cited its “Hate Speech and Hateful Behavior” rules. The law that gave the complainant the reporting tool and that gives TikTok every financial reason to comply without asking too many questions, is the Online Safety Act.

The OSA was sold to the British public as child protection. The actual legislation requires platforms to police all content against UK law, including broadly defined “hate speech” provisions.

Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to £18 million ($24m) or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. For a platform the size of TikTok, that penalty could run into billions. The rational response to that kind of liability is to delete first and never think about it again.

Under the OSA, platforms must provide UK users with tools to report content they believe is illegal under British law.

TikTok confirmed this is what triggered the action against Yusuf’s video. The notification he received stated: “We have detected this policy violation based on a report that the content violated our Community Guidelines.”

Keep reading

Fresh wave of UFO files to be released after Trump sparked chaos with alien picture

The second phase of the Trump Administration’s UFO disclosure is underway, with officials saying the next batch of files is expected to be released ‘very soon.’

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announced Monday on X that the materials are currently ‘actively being processed’ for publication.

The first release, published on May 8, included never-before-seen photos, videos and government documents tied to unidentified anomalous phenomena, also known as UAPs.

Lawmakers previously noted that the initial disclosure was only the beginning, teasing that far more explosive material remained hidden from the public.

Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett, one of Congress’ most outspoken advocates for UFO transparency, fueled speculation after the May 8 release by claiming: ‘The 1st drop will be big, but in comparison to what is coming, they will be a drop in the bucket.’

‘I would say “Holy Crap” is coming,’ Burchett added.

The latest update arrived just one day after President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself standing beside a handcuffed alien at a US military base, further intensifying online discussion surrounding the administration’s disclosure campaign.

The surreal image, shared on Trump’s Truth Social account, showed the president and his security detail escorting the extraterrestrial figure across the tarmac while armed military personnel looked on.

News of the second release flooded social media, where one user said: ‘Finally! The government’s processing UFOs faster than my laptop processes a software update.

‘Either we’re getting disclosure or the world’s longest episode of coming soon. Either way, grab your tinfoil hat, things are getting interesting.’

Others, however, are not sold on the notion that the files will be released soon.

One X use posted: ‘The phrase “actively being processed” is classic government doublespeak, suggesting momentum while committing to absolutely nothing, keeping the UFO hype alive without releasing a single page. 

‘It’s the perfect way to acknowledge public curiosity without ever having to deliver, turning transparency into an endless process rather than an event.’

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading

Virginia Governor Spanberger Rages on X After Supreme Court Kills Democrat Gerrymander

Virginia Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger erupted in anger on social media Friday after the Supreme Court refused to reinstate the state’s new congressional map that Democrats openly designed to flip up to four House seats in the 2026 midterms.

The high court’s one-sentence order left in place a 4-3 ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court that struck down the redistricting amendment on procedural grounds, meaning the state will use its existing 2021 congressional districts for the upcoming elections.

Spanberger took to X to lash out at both the state and federal courts, claiming they had “nullified an election” and the votes of more than three million Virginians.

The governor wrote in full:

The Supreme Court of the United States has now joined the Supreme Court of Virginia in choosing to nullify an election and the votes of more than three million Virginians.

These Virginians made their voices heard — casting their ballots in good faith to push back against a President who said he’s “entitled” to more seats in Congress before voters go to the polls.

As Governor, I will make sure voters know when and how to cast their votes this year. Because our votes are how we choose the representation we deserve.

Spanberger later shared a link on her personal campaign account directing supporters to donate to Democratic congressional candidates via ActBlue.

Keep reading

Racist streamer ‘Chud the Builder’ charged with attempted murder for shooting outside court

Racist streamer “Chud the Builder” has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly shooting someone who confronted him outside a Tennessee courthouse, officials said.

The streamer — real name Dalton Eatherly, 28 — shot an unidentified man during a fight Wednesday outside the courthouse in Clarksville, according to District Attorney Robert J. Nash, who said Chud also accidentally shot himself during the fracas.

Eatherly, who amassed an online following by filming himself spewing vile racial slurs to get reactions, was in court for a civil case over unpaid debts, just days after he was arrested for skipping out on a $400 restaurant bill while refusing to stop streaming.

He livestreamed from the shooting scene, blaming his gunfire on the other man — who was black, according to witnesses — confronting him over his vile online content.

He said the man and others were “laughing” as he walked by — and threatened to hit him if he started spouting his racist ideologies.

“He said, ‘You start saying all that chimp out s–t to me and ‘imma hit you,’ and he hit me, he started whaling on me,” Eatherly, who has multiple videos online referring to black people as chimps, said in the video, CNN reported.

Then Eatherly bizarrely tried to pin blame on “rich people” goading strangers into harming him. “They’re all publicly saying ‘If y’all assault this guy, we’ll make you rich.’ The f–k,” he said.

The victim was medically evacuated by LifeFlight and is recovering in stable condition, officials said. 

Eatherly also suffered what’s been described as a “graze” wound on his arm and Nash said it appears he accidentally shot himself during the fracas. He was detained at the scene.

Keep reading

EU chief turns up heat on social media’s ‘addictive’ design

The European Union is working on new rules to protect children from the addictive designs of social media platforms such as TikTok, Meta and X, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on May 12.

“Sleep deprivation, depression, anxiety, self-harm, addictive behaviour, cyberbullying, grooming, exploitation, suicide. Risks are multiplying fast,” she said in a speech in Copenhagen.

“These risks are the reality of the digital world. They are not accidental. They are the result of business models that treat our children’s attention as a commodity.”

Ms von der Leyen said the commission would specifically target “addictive and harmful design practices” in its Digital Fairness Act (DFA), due to be proposed towards the end of 2026.

The DFA would also set strict limits on the use of artificial intelligence in social media, she said, while advocating a minimum age for social media access.

Ms von der Leyen said the EU must consider setting a minimum age for access to social media, adding that the commission might make a proposal in the summer on the issue following recommendations from a panel of experts.

“The question is not whether young people should have access to social media, the question is whether social media should have access to young people,” she said.

Keep reading